Tag Archives: IFTTA

IFTTA: German Supreme Court clarifies scope of PTD insolvency protection

In judgement of Nov. 2, 2011 the German Supreme Court (BGH) held that insolvency protection pursuant to Art. 7 PTD also covers the repayment of the travel price if the organiser had cancelled the package trip before going bust. Neither Art. 7 PTD nor German law would require a causal connection between the insolvency of the organiser and the cancellation of the trip. Due to clear wording of Art. 7 PTD in this regard, the BGH saw no reason to file a reference for preliminary ruling to the ECJ.

Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)

BGH press release 173/2011 of Nov. 2, 2011

IFTTA: yet another reference for preliminary ruling challenging „Sturgeon” (Germany)

In a reference for a preliminary ruling from the Landgericht Köln lodged on 5 August 2011 the ECJ is asked the following question:

  • Is it compatible with the principle of the separation of powers in the European Union if, in order to remedy what would otherwise be unequal treatment, Regulation No 261/2004 is interpreted as meaning that a passenger who is affected by a mere delay of more than three hours is entitled to compensation under Article 7 of the Regulation, although the Regulation provides for this only in the case of denied boarding or cancellation of the booked flight but, in the event of delay, restricts the passenger’s claims to assistance under Article 9 of the Regulation and, if the delay is for more than five hours, also assistance under Article 8(1)(a) of the Regulation?

The reference follows similar motions by other courts to challenge the ECJ’s Sturgeon judgement.

Case C-413/11 – Germanwings GmbH v Amend

Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)

IFTTA: France to impose new tax on luxury hotel rooms

On 7 September 2011, the French National Assembly has adopted a finance bill which includes a new 2% tax on hotel stays where rates exceed EUR 200 per night. The bill is subject to ratification by the French Senate. Once ratified the new tax shall be due as from 1 November 2011.

Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)

IFTTA: hotel liable for theft from safe in hotel room (Austrian Supreme Court)

The plaintiffs (a German couple) sued a Vienna 4 star hotel company for compensation of more than EUR 160.000 of valuables stolen from the safe in their hotel room. When they had asked at the reception where to keep their valuables, the receptionist had told them to use the safe in their room. This safe had to be locked and unlocked by a code of four numbers chosen by the plaintiffs. However, the safe could also be opened by using a ‚mastercode’. This mastercode for emergency cases had not been changed by the hotel management for almost two years and was known by no less than 16 of the current employees and an unclear number of former employees. Because of earlier thefts from hotel rooms, police had already urged the hotel manager to increase safety standards.

Dismissing the hotel’s appeal, the Austrian Supreme Court upheld the judgements of the lower courts, holding the hotel company liable for the theft: As guests of a 4 star hotel who had explicitly asked for a way to safely store their valuables, they could have expected that an emergency code would not be known to a vast number of current and former employees. As regards potential contributory negligence of the plaintiffs who – as the hotel stated – had not mentioned the extraordinary value of the items to be stored, the Supreme Court held that the hotel had not explained which safety measures would have been taken if the actual value had been known. Thus there was no causal conncetion between the potential failure and the damage.

Supreme Court decision 1 Ob 119/11 of July 21, 2011 available in German here>>.

Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)

IFTTA: Portuguese court next to seek clarification of the „Sturgeon” judgement

On 8 July 2011, the Tribunal de Pequena Instância Cível de Lisboa (Portugal) lodged a reference for prelimiary ruling of the ECJ  questioning the „Sturgeon” judgement of the Court as follows:

  • As a result of the judgment of the Court of Justice of 19 November 2009 in Joined Cases C-402/07 and C-432/07, in which it was held that Articles 5, 6 and 7 of Regulation No 261/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that passengers whose flights are delayed may be treated, for the purposes of the application of the right to compensation, as passengers whose flights are cancelled where the time that they have lost due to the delayed flight is more than three hours, should the said articles be interpreted in the same way in the case of a flight that, having started on time at the place of departure, was delayed at the stop-over airport for three hours and fifty five minutes before taking off again because the airline, for operational reasons, decided to change equipment, where the equipment that replaced the previous equipment had already broken down prior to the stopover and needed a technical intervention, so that the flight arrived at the destination location with the said delay of three hours and fifty five minutes?

Case: C-365/11, João Nuno Esteves Coelho dos Santos v. TAP Portugal

Source: IFTTA (by Michael Wukoschitz)

IFTTA: another reference for preliminary ruling concerning Reg. 261/2004 (Spain)

On 28 June 2011, Juzgado de lo Mercantil de A Coruña (Spain) lodged a reference for preliminary ruling of the ECJ with regard to the following question:

  • May the definition of ‚denied boarding’ contained in Article 2(j), in conjunction with Article 3(2) and 4(3), of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004,  be regarded as including a situation in which an airline refuses to allow boarding because the first flight included in the ticket is subject to a delay ascribable to the airline and the latter erroneously expects the passengers not to arrive in time to catch the second flight, and so allows their seats to be taken by other passengers?

Case C-321/11 Germán Rodríguez Cachafeiro and Maria Reyes Martínez-Reboredo Varela-Villamayor v. Iberia

Source: IFTTA (by: Michael Wukoschitz)

“The New World of Travel – Safety and Security in International Travel ” – 23rd IFTTA CONFERENCE (Toronto, 13-15.10.11)

Więcej informacji o konferencji: strona IFTTA

IFTTA: first reference for ECJ preliminary ruling regarding rail passenger rights (Austria)

The Austrian „Schienen-Control Kommission Wien” has filed a reference for preliminary ruling of the ECJ with regard to the following questions:

* Is Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on rail passengers’ rights and obligations to be interpreted as meaning that information on main connecting services must include, in addition to scheduled departure times, notification of delays to or cancellations of those connecting services?

* If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: is Article 5 of, in conjunction with Annex II to, Directive 2001/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2001 on the allocation of railway infrastructure capacity and the levying of charges for the use of railway infrastructure [and safety certification] to be interpreted, in the light of Article 8(2) of, in conjunction with Annex II, Part II, to, Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007, as meaning that the infrastructure manager is under an obligation to make real-time data on other railway undertakings’ trains available to railway undertakings in a non-discriminatory manner, in so far as those trains constitute main connecting services within the meaning of Annex II, Part II, to Regulation (EC) No 1371/2007?

Case C-136/11 Westbahn Management GmbH v. ÖBB-Infrastruktur AG.

Source: IFTTA (by Michael Wukoschitz)

IFTTA: German court regards ‚automatic’ inclusion of cancellation insurance to flight ticket price illegal

German Oberlandesgericht Jena recently held that it was an illegal trade practice to automatically include a cancellation insurance to the ticket price during the online booking process. Such practice would deceive the average consumer even if he had the option to avoid the inclusion of the insurance by unclicking the related tickbox. The deceptive practice would also violate EU Regulation 1008/2008 on on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community.

OLG Jena, judment 2 U 783/10 of April 6, 2011.

Source: IFTTA